M.Tamilarasan v. The District Registrar
DATED: 04-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY M.Tamilarasan Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Registrar, Salem East, Office of the District Registrar, Mariyappan Nagar, Ammapettai, Salem-636 014.
2.The Sub Registrar, Office Of The Sub Registrar, Ayothiyapattinam SRO, Salem District.
3.K.Muthusamy 4.A.Anaiammal 5.R.Anjalam Respondent(s) PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the record of the impugned refusal check-slip No.85/2025 dated 29.08.2025 issued by respondent No.2 and quash the same and subsequently direct the 2nd respondent to proceed with registration of the Sale Deed dated 29.08.2025 presented by petitioner (in
respect of the property described above) within a specific period of time. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.Sunil Kumar For Respondents:
Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2
ORDER
Challenge was made against the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 2 nd respondent dated 29.08.2025, refusing to register the sale deed dated 29.08.2025 presented by the petitioner on the ground that there is a mismatch in the seller's father name and consequently, to direct the 2 nd respondent to proceed with registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner within a specified time.
2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that originally in the patta / paper records, the vendor's father name has been mentioned as Thangaraj, since the late Karuppannan was used to call as Thangaraj in their locality and the same has been mistakenly mentioned and, the private
respondents / legal heirs of said Karupannan applied to the respondent to correct the name in the patta from Thangaraj to Karupannan so as to bring the patta in line with other records. Subsequently, the online patta now stands in the name of Karupannan and the patta in the revenue portal shows the correct name.
3. It is also stated that, in all the records, it has been mentioned as Karuppannan including Adhar Card, legal heir certificate and computer patta. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner when presented the sale deed for registration, the same was returned by the 2 nd respondent stating that there is mismatch in the name of the seller's father name in the revenue records. Hence, he filed this writ petition.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in the present case, after issuance of the impugned refusal check slip, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the District Registrar and the same has been rejected, refusing registration.
5. In the present case, the issue is with regard to seller's father's name mentioned in the computer patta though has been mutated as Karupannan and the same has been available in the revenue portal, the Sub-Registrar refused registration for the reasons that in the manual patta it is mentioned as Thangaraj. Though in all the records, including the death certificate, computer patta and adhar card, the name is mentioned as Karuppannan, the Sub-Registrar passed the impugned order, refusing registration without considering the said aspect.
6. In view of the same, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 2 nd respondent is set aside and the 2 nd respondent / Sub-Registrar is directed to register the sale deed of the petitioner dated 29.08.2025, if it is otherwise in order, immediately after representation.
7. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs.
04-11-2025 kkn Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.The District Registrar, Salem East, Office of the District Registrar, Mariyappan Nagar, Ammapettai, Salem-636 014.
2.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Ayothiyapattinam SRO, Salem District.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
KKN
04-11-2025